September 6, 2009

[Q]uite a number of people ... seem to believe that Obama intends to induct their children into -- well, it's not quite clear what they're afraid of. The Web and talk radio are abuzz with various attempts to organize a boycott of Tuesday's speech....

[There is a] process at work in the healthcare hysteria and, increasingly, elsewhere where the GOP thinks it can shove the Obama administration into a ditch. Republican officials ... are playing a dangerous game with an unhinged segment of public opinion that regards Obama not as an elected official with whom they disagree, but as an illegitimate usurper of the presidency.

That paranoid fantasy is what's really behind the 'birther' movement and the allegations that the president is -- take your pick -- a secret Marxist or a secret Muslim.

Come on! This is absurd. You're stringing one thing after another and claiming it's all part of a big scheme. That itself is paranoid ideation.

It's the kind of fanciful anxiety that produces comments like this, posted on a conservative website this week: "Barack Obama and his left-wing Chicago machine regime are putting into place laws and institutions which will insure that there will never again be free elections in America."

And this is the kind of fanciful anxiety that produces columns like this....

Good lord, somebody posted a comment on a website somewhere and in Rutten's fevered brain it's all: yes, yes, this is exactly the way it is.... this, this is the problem!!!11!!!11!!!

Get a grip, man.

These are the people who are stockpiling ammunition and keeping their children at home next Tuesday.

What people?! The people! The people! You know: THE PEOPLE!!!! The PEOPLE WITH GUNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS.........

Again fringe hysteria drowned out quieter, more straightforward critique such as:1) This "lesson plan" is a bit concerning2)Why does this administration continue to do "too much" and do too much "production". focus please!3) In the age of DVR, DVD's etc. do you really need to directly broadcast to the schools. i'm pretty sure they can record what they see fit and decide on their own lesson plans.

I can live with Obama making speaches to kids. Other President's have done so. As long of course as the topics are things like, do your homework, work hard, stay in school and you can be what you want to be. That is what Obama should say.

What is scary is the Dept of Education with lession plans and a bunch of Union activists (e.g. teachers) creating "teaching moments".

Wrong. Rutten is specific about who the people are that he is talking about. The gun and ammunition hoarders are at the very least fellow-travelers with and in many (if not most) cases completely overlap with the birther/Obama is a Muslim/this is all commie indoctrination crowd. All you have to do is go to places like World Net Daily, Redstate.com or Free Republic to find examples of this sort of thing, not to mention the tea parties and town halls. Rutten has provided examples to back up his position, Althouse. It's up to you to disprove them, if you want to claim that he is wrong and all of these things are just unrelated phenomena. This post is just lame hand-waving, and Rutten has the better of this argument.

Rutten is clearly making an attempt to show the entire GOP as either largely made up of or increasingly under the influence of wackos who believe EVERY far out theory, and there is no truth to that implication.

Most of us take each issue on it's own merits. We can avoid the extreme positions and still not be afraid to be disgusted with a Van Jones. Most of us don't believe for a minute any of the birther nonsense. And it goes on that way for MOST of us conservatives.

Rutten is a talented, way-too-arrogant Frank Rich wannabe who can't seem to take a minute to read the comments in the New York Times - which daily is filled with far left wacko comments - much less the Huffington Post and most other left wing sites. He would have much more credence if he would catalog and decry the extreme on the other side as well.

somefeller, my word verification for this comment is todinglywhich is the way you should not be serving your ideology.

Paranoia strikes again - here's a tune I can't get out of my head today (Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth):

"There's something happening hereWhat it is ain't exactly clearThere's a man with a gun over thereTelling me I got to beware..............................Paranoia strikes deepInto your life it will creepIt starts when you're always afraidYou step out of line, the man come and take you awayWe better stop, hey, what's that soundEverybody look what's going down"

Roger J et al:This was very much done in sync with the msm.The freakazoids of mcmansion hell won the spin war for this round.Here's where it goes from here: msm stays with youon the Obama is doomed meme for a while and then in the not too distant future, just when the story arc is perfect, they switch sides.

Girl, I want you here with me But I'm really not as cool as I'd like to be 'Cause there's a red, under my bed And there's a little yellow man in my head And there's a true blue inside of me That keeps stoppin' me, touchin' ya, watchin' ya, lovin' ya

Paranoia, the destroyer. Paranoia, the destroyer.

wv - "unest" = The therapy used by the MSM to build-up Obama's pride without screaming anything that might hurt his feelings.

Just because paranoid-Americans have a problem with the speech doesn't mean that the speech is A-OK. I don't recall the existence of paranoid anti-Iraq war protestors discrediting the notion of opposition to the war.

Also, Rutten conveniently neglects to mention the Big Brotherish DOE study guide, which is an important part of the story. Without that context, opposition to the speech does sound rather paranoid, which is course why he leaves it out.

Who says the wingnuts are crazy when they repeatedly appear to be right? Van Jones got big advertisers to pull themselves away from Beck - that tells us a lot about how much pull the truth has in this country. I'm prepared to say - and have said - it's the so-called "moderates" in this country (with their "non-judgmental", look at both sides of every issue - even if there aren't two sides - bullshit) who are the danger.

Ann recently subtitled this blog as "moderate opinions in an immoderate voice". My blog is about "immoderate opinions in an immoderate voice".

Again fringe hysteria drowned out quieter, more straightforward critique such as: ....

Oh, bullshit! It wasn't the "hysteria" doing the drowning. It was the media.

There will always be fringe hysteria about everything political and the news media will always exploit it to attempt to benefit the left. However, the news media is becoming less and less able to "drown out" anyone.

Responsible people don't want their children propagandized by any politician. That message emerged loud and clear for anybody who wanted to listen.

Wow, this is crazy. We live in a civic democracy, and agree that the president is the chief executive, even if we voted for someone else. And Obama is living proof that the promise of equal opportunity is real.

Let him talk to the kids. You know, listening to an idea won't kill you. And he won't covert all the children into flaming, nutcase liberals.

They are kids. For the most part, they couldn't care less about Obama. It's the adults who are losing it.

Reminds me of the left wing hysteria of how Buch/Cheney was going to suspend the elections in 2004, and then in 2008.

Indeed. More and more, whenever something coo-coo like this comes out I think it's all just projection.

I haven't heard anyone really syaing that Obama wasn't properly elected, just that they hate what he's doing and are trying to make sure his actions don't do damage to the country that we can't fix later. The TEA parties were made fun of, then the town hall stuff came up, which seems like the most proper use of free speech there is, to tell your personal elected officials that they better not vote on stuff their constituents don't like or they will be out on their asses.

And now the education thing. It is paranoia a bit, but more, as I said the other day, it's a matter of trust. The stimulus + cap and trade + card check + flag@whitehouse.gov + health care reform + education to go along with this speech to all the little kids + all the random little "i won" type statements since obama was elected have led us to a place where a huge hunk of the country DONT TRUST Obama to just blather something like "stay in school/don't do drugs".

Even our local news stories had school principals quoted as saying they didn't see what the problem was, they didn't understand it, they thought it would be pretty non-controversial, etc. They never seem to think their own lack of understanding is a problem.

It reminds me of a favorite Atlantic essay by Jonathan Rauch, Caring for Your Introvert. I think of conservatism as politically introverted and liberalism as politically extroverted.

excerpt from the essay:

Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.

Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.

Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)

With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality.

Well, there's some point behind those feelings. Bush did come in second in the popular vote, back in 2000. So he didn't pile up as ringing a mandate as, say, Barack Obama.

Van Jones got big advertisers to pull themselves away from Beck - that tells us a lot about how much pull the truth has in this country.

Glenn Beck shot off his mouth, and reaped the consequences. Actions have consequences. Glenn Beck must accept responsibility for his own acts.

Fox News' Glenn Beck is feeling the consequences of his controversial comments on the July 28 episode of "Fox and Friends," when he said that Barack Obama was a "racist" who had a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

According to TVNewser, Beck advertisers Procter and Gamble, Lawyers.com and Progressive Insurance have all pulled their ads from Beck's 5PM ET show. This comes in the wake of groups like ColorOfChange.org's efforts to get companies to distance themselves from Beck.

Now if the crackmc agrees with Beck that that Obama -- a man raised by whites, educated by whites, who succeeded in the white man's world -- for example, Obama was the second man of African descent since Reconstruction to become a Senator -- has a deep-seated hatred for whites or the white culture, then I must respectfully suggest that his critical thinking skills are not all they could and should be.

"... where the GOP thinks it can shove the Obama administration into a ditch."

What does Rutten mean "thinks?"

The ditch is precisely where we're shoving this administration ... and quite successfully I might add ... by merely replaying for the American people what Barack Obama is saying and what Barack Obama is doing.

By replaying what Barack Obama's friends are saying, and by showing them on YouTube what Barack Obama's friends are doing.

By merely telling the American people, using Barack Obama's own words, how he intends to govern America.

By merely showing the American people the buildings Barack Obama's friends have bombed.

By merely showing people the whackjob petitions Barack Obama's friends are signing. By showing them the YouTube videos of the speeches they give their moron fans when the American people are too busy working to notice.

Pardon me, Mr. Rutten, if you think we should allow Barack Obama to run the country into a ditch. We'd rather, instead, see him in the ditch and so we're going to shove him there.

So, regarding my introvert-extrovert analogy, I guess I think of liberalism as very active (activist) and outgoing and "change" oriented and conservatives often feel like they have to protect themselves from it. So they are the "party of no." Liberals are louder and dominate the conversation - and they don't understand why the stuff they want to foist on everyone isn't welcome. And they don't stop to try to listen to conservatives' principled reasons for resistance to liberal encroachments into their private lives.

"if the crackmc agrees with Beck that that Obama -- a man raised by whites, educated by whites, who succeeded in the white man's world -- for example, Obama was the second man of African descent since Reconstruction to become a Senator -- has a deep-seated hatred for whites or the white culture, then I must respectfully suggest that his critical thinking skills are not all they could and should be."

Ha! Like middle class blacks growing up to be angry race-mongers is unusual. What planet are you living on? Barack Obama is a racist and he's got the friends to prove it. Glen Beck was right and all those advertisers should be told to get a grip and start paying attention. Oh, wait - they can't - because, since "New Age "Asiatic" thought ... is establishing itself as thehegemonic ideology of global capitalism", they are compelled to adopt the NewAge line that only those of us against the "progressive" NewAge viewpoint are downright evil.

You're stringing one thing after another and claiming it's all part of a big scheme.

Rutten's arguing there's a common theme, not a common scheme: despite his solid majority in both the popular and electoral votes, Obama should not be President.

The common theme is that Obama should not be President because he is not a real American.- Not a natural-born citizen, but a Kenyan or Indonesian.- Not a (real) Christian. At best a follower of some crazy anti-white demagogue. Probably a Muslim like his daddy. Or his stepdaddy.- Not a conservative. Conservatives are the only real Americans because they embrace the ideals that made our country great -- not taxing the rich.- Did not grow up in the real America.- - Grew up in Indonesia -- a Muslim country- - Grew up in Hawaii -- the middle class Valhalla according to Paul Fussell- - Lived in the big cities of LA, NYC, and Chicago- - Never ate anything he killed.- - Lived in a college neighborhood surrounded by tenured professors with radical backgrounds.- Finally -- had a black daddy.

Jeremiah Wright was someone Teh One™ could no more disavow than his own grandmother, but he threw both under the bus. I'm sure he considered them friends at one time; convenient friends, but friends nonetheless.

Van Jones was likely a friend as well, someone to be discarded at a moment's notice (or when it became apparent that there was no vetting done of him other that the (D) next to his name, both by the Administration and the nursing media).

I do note a continuing theme on his "friends": they are discarded without shame when they become inconvenient.

FLS, I don't know if Obama is a racist, I think it is rather that the things he attacks happen to be highly valued and championed by whites, so it seems that way to many of them. Much like conservatives are always accused of being racist for disliking, affirmative action, welfare, income redistribution. I think if you reversed the skin colors of Beck and Obama, then Beck's statement would not be news or anything worthy of a boycott. In fact, I know it, because I see it daily on MSNBC about white conservatives. It's really just the PC temperature at this point in history.

And many people who were raised in and benefited from a capitalist system still end up becoming communists, so Obama's white upbringing does not make immune to being anti-white. It's more about what ideas he embraces during his life.

Three! Three? Wow - you're really digging there, aren't you? Leaving some people out, aren't you? Where's the guy he described as a member of his family? You know, the guy who married him, baptized his kids, introduced him to the black community, and taught him who to be "spiritually"?

And, please, where's Father Pflieger or Bill Ayers (both white racists) or Louis Farrakhan - who Obama refers to as "the honorable" - and how does Van Jones fit in your outlook of all this? Especially considering Obama would like to keep him on?

fls wrote: Now if the crackmc agrees with Beck that that Obama ... has a deep-seated hatred for whites or the white culture, then I must respectfully suggest that his critical thinking skills are not all they could and should be.

On the other hand, Obama sat at the feet of Rev. J. Wright, racist Black Liberation Theologist, for 20 years, called him his "spititual mentor" and donated thousands to his church. Racist Louis Farrakhan has called Obama the black "messiah." Obama gratuitously analogized the Skip Gates incident with racial profiling. Obama referred to grandma as a "typical white person." Obots ongoingly engage in race-baiting without pausing for breath and without comment from their messiah.

You would think even the left-wing adulators who post here might have a clue that critical thinking does not automatically exonerate Obama from charges of racial bias.

Why is it the liberals who are always bringing up Teh One™'s skin color? Don't they remember how they're supposed to focus on the content of the character and not the color of the skin? Or is February just too far away?

WV: heatic, as in MJ's Pepsi commercial turned into a rendition of "Heatic"

I agree that we should calm down and allow the president to make this address to school children. But I say so even though there is cause for concern.As Michelle Malkin has said, there will not be anything in the speech that is, on its own merits, dangerous. But the public school systems and their liberal unionized teachers will most likely use the speech as a platform to then go ahead and utilize the speech for their own local grassroots left wing indoctrinations.

I think it will be quite interesting to see what parents and schoolyard "tea baggers" will react to once the teachers have stepped in it.

GOP officials? Does Rutten live under a rock or is he just disconnected from all reality? There are no GOP officials telling any conservatives I know a damn thing. We're organizing and activating ourselves without any "help" from the GOP, believe me. Personally, I agree with parents who keep their kids out of school Tuesday.

What President Stupidly wants to do is simply outrageous, but more to the point, he badly needs to shut up and go away. Even those of us avoiding seeing and hearing him have OD'd on this crap. Every time he opens his fat, inarticulate mouth he just makes things worse.

I get really tired of political opponents constructing a hidden agenda for their opposite numbers.... I wish more people would listen instead of making stuff up.

Gee, back when I was involved in politics I used to think the political stuff my political opponents did was to improve their positions -- politically. I guess folks are just making that up about Obama.

He certainly doesn't make endless public appearances to improve his political position, does he? (LOL)

There is one thing I can't figure out, though. It has always seemed to me that while conservatives tend to see liberals as misguided, most liberals absolutely hate conservatives. Even among unfettered anonymous commenters, I don't think I have ever seen an expression of hate directed at Obama, whereas on Kos and HuffPo it is uncommon to find, even today, a poster who doesn't express hate for Bush or Cheney.

I chalk this up to many conservatives, like me, having been liberals in their foolish youth. Can extroverts become introverts?

I suppose this guy completely ignored the paranoia about elections while Bush was president... I mean, King... and how he wasn't ever going to step down and how Cheney brought some National Guard units home so that he could lead them in a domestic coup?

somefeller - you're a hypocrite. Where were you complaining about the unhinged left from 2001-2008? Oh yeah you are a member of the unhinged left. You don't have a problem with being unhinged, you just don't like th right-wing.

The game is pretty simple, really. A guy like Rutten finds a couple examples of extremists -- and there are extremists all over the place in both the right and the left, so there's no problem doing that -- stitches a theory out of whole cloth, and then tries to tell the public "you don't want to be crazy like them, do you?"

The trouble with his idea is the the right and center can readily find far crazier people closely associated with President Obama -- self-admitted mad bombers like Bill Ayers, "truthers" like Van Jones, the reverend Wright, etc. And few want to be like them, either.

Alex says: somefeller - you're a hypocrite. Where were you complaining about the unhinged left from 2001-2008? Oh yeah you are a member of the unhinged left. You don't have a problem with being unhinged, you just don't like th right-wing.

Actually, in 2002-2008 I was saying that George W. Bush was a crappy President (I didn't say that in 2001, as I was giving him a chance to prove himself, and, may Zeus forgive me, I actually voted for the guy in 2000), and at the time I was telling more far-left people that they were doing more damage than they were helping the left. For example, a friend of mine once asked me why I never would go out on anti-Iraq War protest marches. My response was, other than the fact that I don't do protest marches, that I won't march in a protest led by assclowns like ANSWER (you can look up who they are).

So while yes, I don't like the right wing, I am not a fan of the nutjobs and low-lifes in general. Unfortunately for the right of today, the nutjobs and low-lifes are a much bigger part of the mainstream on the right than they ever were on the left. All you have to do is look at the polling numbers of Republicans (particularly in some parts of the country) who think that Obama wasn't born an American, or who think the birthers might be on to something. One can also take a look at the braying mobs that show up for tea parties that GOP politicians are embracing. So I am not a hypocrite. I am, however, as always, your king. Thanks for the question.

somefeller - you prove your hypocrisy by papering over groups like Code Pink, Moveon.org, ANSWER. What about how groups like ELF, Greenpeace, PETA associated with the left as well? No you are a hypocritical left-wing maniac asshole and we will continue to call you out on it.

BTW, I am not a Birther, creationist, fundie or any other of your stupid labels. But that just serves to confuse you further.

1. Many parents are just tired of the federal government's intrusion into every facet of their lives. This is just an easy one to fight back against. You can't tell the IRS to pound sand, you can't tell the EPA to take a hike, but you CAN keep your kids home from school for a day.

2. Many people who would otherwise not be concerned by a presidential address to schoolchildren have noticed that virtually every utterance of President Obama isn't just a dry policy statement, but rather a paean to Obama. They are rightly concerned that the permanent campaign sounds more like a commercial for Obama than merely an address urging their children to do well in school.

"Responsible people don't want their children propagandized by any politician. That message emerged loud and clear for anybody who wanted to listen."

Responsible parents have been told for decades that rather than demand that government censor entertainment to something appropriate for children that they should monitor it themselves and watch together and discuss. The same with news programs. And mostly everyone agrees with this parental duty in favor of censorship.

Now, it seems, wanting to monitor what children watch it is bad, bad, bad. I think it was somefeller who thought wanting to let schools or parents have the text of the speech ahead of time was outrageous... why even give the speech then? And the other day MayBee linked to Joan Walsh who lamented that right wing radicals had forced non-elected censors in the form of school administrators to vet the (elected) president's speech to children. Honestly, does winning an election give one free access to children?

We're constantly scoffed at for any suggestion that anything could be a slippery slope but how is it that we find ourselves in a place where the desire to supervise what our children are exposed to is WRONG?

How did we get here?

We're ENTITLED to be paranoid about our children. Indeed, we are REQUIRED to be paranoid about our children.

Our liberal local fishwrap, the St Pete Times, ran a very predictable story painting those who objected to Obama's speech as misguided little ignorant wingnuts.

There were two interesting omissions: 1) the paper NEVER mentioned the Dept of Education exercises that included the helpful "what can you do to help Obama" question, and 2) the paper published and then removed a comment from a local school board member where she said that she loathed Bush and wanted to throw up every time she heard him speak.

I don't think that we conservatives should get into the trap of objecting to actions from Democratic politicians that - if a Republican were to do it - we would be OK with. So, if Obama wants to give a harmless little speech about staying in school, studying hard etc, that is fine.

What is interesting is that the left will try to hammer the right with this as another example of right wing paranoia. If we had NOT erupted to the creepy little tagalongs from the Dept of Education, however, then it would have been an exercise in propaganda. Not that it will be an exercise in pablum, the left will say, "See, you guys didn't have anything to worry about."

The only reason that we had nothing to worry about was the good work on the front end.

That said, we need to FOCUS our efforts on the important things and not get bogged down in "light and transient causes." EVERY effort needs to be directed towards taking back the House next year.

"Yeah, it is paranoia. The President is going to tell the kids to be good kids. Big deal."

Probably. But "good" is a moral concept that begs the question, what is considered "good"? Is this "behave yourself and work hard" good or is it "save the planet and do good deeds selflessly for others" good?

"I get really tired of political opponents constructing a hidden agenda for their opposite numbers.

People say what they want to do. They are quite open about their motivations. I wish more people would listen instead of making stuff up."

Many of us do not see anything *hidden* in Obama's agenda. He's been forthright about what he thinks from the beginning. Policies should prefer "fairness" over other concerns, wealth should be shared, children should be forced to do volunteer labor for "good" causes and that should be expanded to college students, people have a "right" to health care and thus a right to the labor of others, all criticism of himself is race based, sign a pledge to support him, "I won" and shut up and get out of the way, report those who lie about me to flag@whitehouse.gov, and a demonstrated willingness to view the Constitution of a country irrelevant to the promise of democratic uprising and he is STILL looking for additional ways to force Zelaya back into power in the tiny country of Honduras.

Nothing is SECRET, there are only people who don't care to hear or see.

"I'm still happy Van Jones is gone. It's nice to see that liberals aren't radicals."

Really.

And maybe we should go over all of Obama's *other* unelected and unvetted appointees and advisors to see what we find.

World Net Daily, the force behind the birthers, is the #1 conservative website on the internet. Video after video of people bringing loaded guns to town halls. Cries of "Obama the Socialist" are everywhere. A President giving a positive speech to schoolchildren is labeled as "indoctrination," by conservatives.

Althouse wonders who these "people" are? Has she read the comments on her blog? Has she browsed the internet? Isn't this the woman who listens to Rush Limbaugh? Acting like these people don't exist... talk about being dishonest.

Democrats opposed to Bush's policies were marginalized and branded extreme leftists, so it's only fair that Republicans or people opposed to Obama's policies, such as Althouse, be branded extreme as well. That's the way it works. Sorry you all can't control your your birthers and your racists.

"Republican officials ... are playing a dangerous game with an unhinged segment of public opinion that regards Obama not as an elected official with whom they disagree, but as an illegitimate usurper of the presidency."

September 6, 2001Democratic officials ... are playing a dangerous game with an unhinged segment of public opinion that regards George Bush not as an elected official with whom they disagree, but as an illegitimate usurper of the presidency.

Democrats opposed to Bush's policies were marginalized and branded extreme leftists, so it's only fair that Republicans or people opposed to Obama's policies, such as Althouse, be branded extreme as well. That's the way it works. Sorry you all can't control your your birthers and your racists.

Nonsense. How is Althouse, an independent obligated to "control her birthers and racists". You are an asshole, sir.

Anyone who was paying attention during the last eight years, knows how the crazies ran amok during Bush's presidency. Daily KOS and DU folks, for example, were batshit crazy with conspiracies. And yet Dem leaders openly courted their votes. For liberals to feign horror at the existence of political conspiracies and nasty comments on blogs is the height of hypocrisy, and they know it.

One can suppose the hypocrites, by making a show of their righteous indignation at how ugly political discourse has become, are hoping to gain favor among the politically unconscious portion of the electorate. How long before concerned people are writing the somber and thoughtful editorials calling for legal intervention to halt the insidious spread of such dangerous rhetoric.

How about this conspiracy- Opposition to the ruling party is the new hate speech.

If the LA times were writing a retrospective of Lenin, they'd describe him as an advocate of state involvement in health care...

Now I'm off to clean guns. And my cannon. i may even reload a bit, if I can find any empty boxes than need filling.

And I did send a letter to my daughter's principal, excusing her from attending The Won's propaganda program.

The problem is not the rising cost of health care. Government, too much of it, is the problem, and we must accept that reality (just like any person with an addiction must) before we can solve the problem.

First, sorry for ranting at your earlier. I realized i'd been an idiot but figured it's better to leave a comment up.

It seems to me Charles Johnson just does not like extremists. Didn't like Muslim extremists, didn't like the Paulie extremists, really didn't like truthers, doesn't like white supremacists, and unsurprisingly doesn't like the current crop of Obama haters. He's actually remarkably consistent about it.

He seems to me to be a JFK liberal, if there was such a thing anymore. Maybe a Reagan Democrat.

It seems to me Charles Johnson just does not like extremists. Didn't like Muslim extremists, didn't like the Paulie extremists, really didn't like truthers, doesn't like white supremacists, and unsurprisingly doesn't like the current crop of Obama haters. He's actually remarkably consistent about it.

He seems to me to be a JFK liberal, if there was such a thing anymore. Maybe a Reagan Democrat.

That might be true. It sure would explain why he spends 80% of his time on righties instead of lefties. But he's still trying to spin the Van Jones deal as a problem for the GOP. He's fucking delusional. Most swing-voters IF they even heard the story saw "angry black Marxist bits the dust" and that's that.

"They are kids. For the most part, they couldn't care less about Obama. It's the adults who are losing it."

The kids will be fine.

The adults are going about their business making sure that the lack of push-back is not seen as tacit approval of enlisting children to "help" the President or welcoming of an ever greater federal involvement in our lives.

It's not as though going after the children is not a known and public element of social and political change advocated by the radical left. I believe Ayers gave up bombs for it? Seriously, he's up front about that, right?

Now we all know that Obama really has no idea who Ayers even IS and hardly even heard of the guy and certainly didn't talk to him and starting his political career in his house was entirely impersonal... anyone who makes connections between the two are obviously paranoid right-wing nut-cases.

Entirely paranoid.

Remember... going after the kids is only wrong when it's Christianists doing it. Any other time and it's important to let the kids make up their own minds, particularly if that means they accept ideology contrary to their parents.

Oh, well. The paranoid style has quite a history here in America, left and right. I'd argue - in fact do argue - that today's resignation of Van Jones offers the president a teaching moment on just this phenomenon.

Would probably be time better spent than preaching to school children about hard work and community service.

"A draft copy of President Barack Obama's planned September 8 address to America's public school children, tells students that 'If you want to grow up to be like me, you should beg your parents to put you in private school, right now.' "

Rutten really shouldn't be taken seriously as anything but a case study of projection. He writes for a dying fish wrap. No wonder he's angry and paranoid. And there's a reason that he whines about the bitter clingers. In his paranoid angst, he knows that he would lose. He likes to ride his ideas to the bottom, blame others, and then run and hide.

As a longtime member of the America's well-hinged gun-owners, we deserve an answer right now why for the first time since 1962 Visas are suddenly available for Castro's Cuban Communists who want me dead, but are being denied to law abiding officials in Honduras who have never threatened me with death, and are themselves struggling to live thru a fight to the death with the Castro/Chavez/Obama's Communist Revolutionary Front? Any answers out there from the always reasonable Obama lovers? If you will answer that question, then I will discuss the use of false accusations of mental illness, such as paranoia, as a passe' slander method.

The school thing is a side skirmish. Obama has stumbled on bigger issues, and the instinctive sense now is to not let him get his footing anywhere.

Everett Dirksen said, "When I feel the heat, I see the light." In attempting to make Obama feel the heat, he gave off the smell of blood. Now the long knives are out with the intent to do him real political damage.

I'll wait and see what Obama says. Too much conjecture exists now. Yes, there are hysterical wingnuts out there. But not all with serious reservations happen to be wingnuts. Many who think that among the worst elements of Bolshevikism, Personality Cult petty dictators, and National Socialism include the early propagandization of kids and calling them to "state-led activism".

However, all the garbage that Algore said about global warming and children saving the planet WAS taught as a belief system in our public schools...And still IS. With the same concept of teacher union-written "teacher-led discussions of how each student could get more active and help."

Discussions to verify students paid attention to the "unquestioned science" Gore revealed, and to reinforce the Green's urgent cal to action. With graded assignments handed out. Some schools made watching Algore's movie obligatory, handed out his and other Green activists "global warming, polar bears threatened with extinction" speeches as graded assignments to review, along with "team-graded" exercises on what they could do in their own lives with CFLs, reusable grocery bags, and "advocacy locally of beautiful solar projects".

Concern exists if Obama follows this bad Gore precedent, and "indoctrination template". It really isn't the Reagan and Bush I examples that worry. All Bush I and Reagan's people did was say that they were going to do speeches, part of it was about kids and school, and classes that wanted to should see it on C-Span.

What Gore did was get powerful people telling teachers - via the NEA, Dem Party, Leftist Front groups - that Gore was an oracle and he should be heeded. And because the fate of the planet was at stake, teachers should ensure the kids knew what they could do to help save the planet..and they should pay attention because teachers would later assign them work based on Gore's wisdom.

There was too much of that hinted at in the buildup to Obama...messages from the White House, Education SEcretary, NEA union bosses...that The One would talk to "all the children" ...and teachers would later have discussions and other follow-ups to assess "what the students learned from Barack's teachable moment".

But, we don't really know today what was planned in the speech and what will be covered (no doubt Obama's TelePrompter script writers made some revisions.)

I do find the cult of personality stuff disturbing. As well as recent articles in which teachers and students alike refer to President Obama as "Barack". Too reminescent of other cult of personality figures of the past. Fidel, Great Father Kim (il-Sung), Diana!, Papa Joe, Uncle Adolf..

Name one past President, Governor whose minions might have egged along crowds to use "Dick", "Bobby", "Ronnie" past the campaign... I can only think of only one cult of personality figure in recent years, beyond Obama - that wanted that 1st name familiarity, and she resigned months after the Presidential campaign was over.

"...we deserve an answer right now why for the first time since 1962 Visas are suddenly available for Castro's Cuban Communists who want me dead, but are being denied to law abiding officials in Honduras who have never threatened me with death, and are themselves struggling to live thru a fight to the death with the Castro/Chavez/Obama's Communist Revolutionary Front?"

WE deserve an answer and HONDURAS deserves no less than an abject, groveling apology and immediate removal of all sanctions and the restoration of all foreign aid.

But Honduras is tiny. Honduras isn't news. And we are not supposed to NOTICE that Obama, the not-socialist is punishing a small nation for keeping Chevez's toady from destroying their constitution and getting himself voted presidente for life.

Do you ever notice that whenever Obama says he's only supporting someone *elses* decision, when he's claiming not to be responsible for his OWN actions, that he's supporting far left, radical, socialist, agendas?

This is not a SECRET paranoid fantasy on the part of people who are paying attention.

But DON'T LOOK!

And remember that Honduras is a tiny little place that no one cares about.

I really don't care if someone called Obama, "Barack". People call Hillary, Hillary all the time, ALL the time, and it's got nothing to do with cult of personality.

And we all know you can't stand Palin, but calling her Sarah has advantages. If nothing else, it emphasizes that she's female and it drives the other side (and you) crazy. Win-win.

Obama has done all sorts of things that scream of "cult of personality" and encouraging the unicorn painters to greater efforts on his behalf. "Barack" hardly registers on that account. (And it's a harsh sounding word that brings to mind villains from Space Ghost, so...)

Bush never gave press conferences and had to be lassoed into giving speeches. This f*cker can't keep the cork in his pie hole. Never seen anybody so enamored of his own drivel. Does he really believe the bullsh*t he deals?

A good part of the current revulsion is that America just wants this @sshole to go away for a while and STFU.

Both sides love this Alinsky tactic, now. Set up the strawman, question the nefarious motive of your foes, present your death panel or bin Laden Moby-Dick like quest as the only rational alternative.All in two to three easy sentences even the dumbest politicians or pundits can do with ease (Pelosi, Brownback, Boxer, Olbermann, Beck, Mahre, Reid, Palin, etc..)

Much like conservatives are always accused of being racist for disliking, affirmative action, welfare, income redistribution.

Which reminds me that attempting to cater to conservatives buys Presidents zippo: conservatives didn't appreciate it when Democrat Bill Clinton set lifetime limits to welfare, nor did they despise Republican Jerry Ford for signing the so-called earned income tax credit (income redistribution) into law, much less when Republican St. Ronald O'Reagan shared credit for a considerable expansion of it.

The recurring assertion that Obama could not have gone to Wright's church for 20 years without embracing each and every Wrightean point of view. Yet the same people have no trouble believing (as I do) that the good professor has been able to listen to Rush Limbaugh -- for at least the past four years -- without becoming a Dittohead. But considering that Rush is on five times a week, while Wright preaches only on Sunday, the collective exposure of Althouse to Rush and Obama to Wright is equivalent.

I have not checked on the Dept of Ed's suggested lesson plans. But I do know that every "educational" program ever made contains a Teacher Packet with suggested lesson plans. Obama's talk would be exceptional if it did not have one.

Democrats opposed to Bush's policies were marginalized and branded extreme leftists, so it's only fair that Republicans or people opposed to Obama's policies, such as Althouse, be branded extreme as well. That's the way it works.

In other words, "We won, so shut up". Well, we'll see how long that works.

I remember when I saw that that I hadn't seen such a cynical exploitation of a child by a Presidential candidate since Nixon used little Vicki Cole of Deshler Ohio, to carry the message that Nixon could bring America back together.

I'm a junior high English teacher. I've had my lesson plans written for weeks. I'm in the middle of a unit. My students will be testing both in Reading and Writing on a state assessment later this academic year. The president's speech has NOTHING to do with my curriculum. I resent ANY interruption in my teaching; I plan around scheduled assemblies accordingly.

Furthermore, I teach what our school board has approved, not what the president tells me to.

Synova - "C4, people who supported "Dubya" called him "Dubya" sometimes.

I really don't care if someone called Obama, "Barack". People call Hillary, Hillary all the time, ALL the time, and it's got nothing to do with cult of personality."

Yes and no, Synova. The distinction is if it is in a formal or informal context. I imagine that if you went to a party of Napa Valley liberal lesbian DEms, there would be no shortage of fans oly saying "Hillary". But in a school, a meeting of officials, or as addressed in a speech by the President or a foreign leader giving her and her office a shred of respect, it will be as "Secretary Hillary Clinton".

Schools have to teach, and a big part of that is habituating students to formal and informal societal constructs that they will soon interact in as adults.

Those lessons begin with the idea that the teacher is not "Jimmie", but Mr. Johnson, and the principal is not "Gretchen" but "Principal Algavodro". And extend outwards in describing other authority figures. To learn what is appropriate familiarity and inapproproate familiarity - and the proper context. I was dating a pincipal's daughter, who went to a different school than her Mom worked in, but I had attended the grade school she was in back when she was Ass't principal.She was "Mrs." outside school, then 1st name basis at certain times when we were effectively peers in interacting (like a few tennis games), back to "Mrs." after her daughter found new eye candy, and back to "principal" when 2 of us came back on invite, and talked about the Gulf War to some of her classes. Then back to a 1st name basis outside school on infrequent times I'd see her around, as now "peer" adults.

It's context, it's the appropriate measure of respect in interactions kids need to learn, and considerate adults practice. If you don't have that "teachable moment" when dealing with impact of the highest elected official in the country...do you create students who then feel put off when they are told to call Full Professor Anne Lowenstein as Prof Lowenstein instead of Anne...or that their 1st boss, Kanchin Subramaynyan, is Mr. Subramanyan, not "Kanchie-dude"??

Another sidematter is that women in authority are much more prone to be given 1st name familiarity than men, and in many cases it is pretty inappropriate.

President Obama should be addressed as President Obama in any formal setting. And school has to be such a formal setting. For the student's own education and betterment. Those that fail to learn, are pretty vulnerable in the workplace and in higher education to failure, because they never learned formal relationships and societal structures that have to rest on formal relationships. The military is a big exception. But it is an exception because it takes kids that call Obama "barack", or constantly act up against their previous authority templates (parents and teachers) - and shoves those dusfunctional behaviors down the unschooled individual's throats. (The military version of the "teachable moment".)

This issue illustrates how the right's good ideas -- stopping Obama's absurd health care scheme -- gets sabotaged by its bad ideas -- organizing parents to remove their kids from school because the president might infect their minds with socialism.

Rutten's column is as bad as Ann says it is, but he wouldn't have had the opportunity to write it if the right hadn't been so dumb to react to Obama in this nutty way.

Synova said: I think it was somefeller who thought wanting to let schools or parents have the text of the speech ahead of time was outrageous... why even give the speech then?

Nope, didn't say that. Must've been someone else. I'd have no problem with the speech being provided to parents in advance. Logistically, that might not be possible if the speech is being finalized on the night before the broadcast (not an uncommon event), but I'd have no problem with that. I did say I'd reserve judgment on a President's speech (including a hypothetical President Hannity) until after I heard it. And that the people who were shrieking about this being socialist propaganda and were going to keep their kids home from school on the day of the speech were nutjobs and low-lifes. That was part of the critique, admittedly.

Alex said: somefeller - you prove your hypocrisy by papering over groups like Code Pink, Moveon.org, ANSWER. What about how groups like ELF, Greenpeace, PETA associated with the left as well?

Actually, I didn't paper over ANSWER, given that I referred to them as assclowns in the comment immediately preceding yours. I don't feel the need to give an itemized list of assclowns, however. But if it makes you feel better, Alex, rest assured, you'd make the list.

ZPS says: World Net Daily, the force behind the birthers, is the #1 conservative website on the internet. Video after video of people bringing loaded guns to town halls. Cries of "Obama the Socialist" are everywhere. A President giving a positive speech to schoolchildren is labeled as "indoctrination," by conservatives. Althouse wonders who these "people" are? Has she read the comments on her blog? Has she browsed the internet? Isn't this the woman who listens to Rush Limbaugh? Acting like these people don't exist... talk about being dishonest.

Exactly. The examples are out there, and Rutten provided some of them. Denying them or claiming Rutten is engaging in paranoia in the face of the many examples of this sort of thing is, like I said, lame handwaving.

somefeller - I know that WND exists, but I haven't gone to that site in years. Althouse would have even less reason to do so. Why is she obligated to denounce every right-wing whack-job? She's JFK-liberal, what do want from her?

The right might just get there, but they've got a long long way to go to match the psychos of the left's performance record of the last eight years, in terms of conspiracy theories, rhetoric, violent protests,and political grandstanding.

It's the game that both the extreme lefties and righties play of "guilt by association". But in this case there is no association, so they try to play another game. Accuse Althouse of not bashing extreme righties, as if she's ever been associated with them in the first place. She does run the occasional post bashing Glenn Beck, so what's the complaints?

Goddess of the Classroom makes a comment which indicates to any sane reader that she is a conscientious teacher concerned that Obama's speech will be a waste of time, the limited precious time she has to teach her students the curriculum.

And what does Former Law Student get out of her comment? That she's "rigid." He also implies, amazingly, that she's lazy.

Well, let me give it to you straight you insane freak lefty, there is going to be a tsunami in 2010 when the decent hardworking largely apolitical types go to the polls and vote their revulsion for leftist overreach and leftist contempt.

There is a bigger issue underlying Rutten's anguished complaint and it's the dreaded realization that most Americans are more conservative than liberal and that a growing majority don't like the direction Obama is taking the country. This is why Rutten and many media commentators were so appalled at ordinary citizens exercising their right to speak out at town halls and tea parties. In Rutten's view Obama is the great white hope of ordinary Americans. How dare they oppose him?

Goddess of the Classroom makes a comment which indicates to any sane reader that she is a conscientious teacher concerned that Obama's speech will be a waste of time, the limited precious time she has to teach her students the curriculum.

And what does Former Law Student get out of her comment? That she's "rigid." He also implies, amazingly, that she's lazy.

Rigid: the President will speak for a total of 15 to 20 minutes. The Goddess of the Classroom's lesson plans are apparently not flexible enough to tolerate a gap of 1/3 of an hour out of the 1080 contact hours she has. Lazy: She made her lesson plans weeks ago, and is sticking to them come hell or high water. Changing lesson plans to suit changed conditions takes effort, an effort she does not intend to expend. Of course, I have always worked in jobs that prized flexibility, so being able to stick to a weeks-old plan seems an unbelievable luxury. But that's a benefit of living off the taxpayer, I suppose.

But ricpic's post made me realize one thing: she's arrogant, too. It's impossible for her to believe that 20 minutes from the President of the United States might possibly be more valuable to her students than the same amount of time from the Goddess of the Classroom.

"It's impossible for her to believe that 20 minutes from the President of the United States might possibly be more valuable to her students than the same amount of time from the Goddess of the Classroom."

It's impossible for me to believe that, also. Really, what's he going to do, besides waste his, the students', and the teachers' time?

"- Not a conservative. Conservatives are the only real Americans because they embrace the ideals that made our country great -- not taxing the rich." FLS.Excuse me there comrade? You must believe that people should be treated differently under the law based on their income level. Nothing like a little class envy to get your blood boiling is there citizen? Of course it would be too much for you to understand that demanding a greater percentage of one man's earnings than another's, based soley on the AMOUNT each earned is just WRONG..what with logic and common sense hurting your head when you try to use them and all.

My opinion: this is a deliberate affront to 9/11, just 3 days later. The President's message will fill the classroom with his pablum, and thereby stifle the national focus on 9/11. My suggestion to the President: cancel his talk due to poor content, impure motive, and bad timing, and then donate the media hookup/time to playing the video records of 9/11, replete with crashes, scenes of our identifiable fellow citizens falling to their deaths and rescuers not escaping, audio of Flight 77. Our school children need to recoil from these factual horrors. Then lead them in a discussion of the war on terrorism, replete with questions. Each Dec 7th I review the video record of Pearl Harbor to rekindle and refresh the early scope of the subsequently revealed Japanese savagery.

My further opinion: The released question guide makes no reference to the need of the students to evaluate the presidential performance, privelege, and responsibilities by the constitutional standard. There is no association with foundations - it is all the 'now', and no linkage with the constitutional justification for presidential behavior. Therefore, the presidency becomes a position free floating in the ocean of current crisis and opinion, without a tethering and without anchorage to the constitutional basis for existence.

A closing opinion: Selecting the first part of the school year to have the President address the school youth of our nation may establish a dangerous precedence for future direct communications into the schools. Youth education ought to remain a strictly local activity. The President was not elected by the youth whom he will address. He should address the parents, and then encourage the parents to discuss these issues with their children. The effort to directly address the school youth is not inherently dangerous nor wrong, but when integrated into the many other philosophical positions of this administration, I believe that this administration should be placed on a 'neighborhood watch' program for the safety of our school youth.

Timothy Rutten's politics are, in case anyone missed it from his article posted herein, very easy to spot. Just Google his name, along with his name and "Dave Pierre." Tim Rutten's own liberal-foaming-at-the-mouth mentality with respect to anyone who dare question the left and/or the liberal machine that is not only the media, but the LA Times as well, has been a spectacle to behold for quite some time.

Not only is Mr. Rutten so completely out of touch with the notion of objective reporting (which, he does seem to fancy himself a "reporter" rather than commentator), he also manages to piss in the well water of other leftists...

Of course, Tim Rutten is from the paper that sent a memo to its bloggers specifically telling them not to talk about John Edwards troubles. That was the official word - cover things up. So it's no wonder he doesn't want anyone talking about Barack Obama and his troubles. The deuce of it is, we don't work for him so he can't order us around. Instead, he's forced to write manipulative columns like this in an attempt to achieve the same end.

I remember when I saw that that I hadn't seen such a cynical exploitation of a child by a Presidential candidate since Nixon used little Vicki Cole of Deshler Ohio, to carry the message that Nixon could bring America back together.

Hey, landed on your blog, nice stuff. I found a cool new tool for our blogs... www.itsolusenz.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog. I added it on mine. Worked like a charm.

is that the one where the widow has less money forcibly extracted from her because she had less wealth, but the rich had more taken from them because they had more? I'm not sure I understand; perhaps the point of the parable is about giving and not taking?

But what am I thinking? The New Testament must serve The Narrative, and not the other way around.

"Make the argument and I'll try to understand. Do you understand the parable of the widow's mite?"

That it was a freely given gift and that the state of her heart was far more important than the amount of her gift? That giving it in secret was better than proclaiming your own charitable virtue? That each of us should give something from our hearts, no matter how poor we are?

I'm at a loss to see how any of this is related to taxes that are imposed by others, demanded of those who are wealthy so that no one can claim to have done a "good work" and not expected from some 40% of the population because we refuse to believe that the poor are full participants.